[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: RedHat vs Debian?

On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 09:33:21AM -0600, Robert L. Harris wrote:
| I'm looking for a study/comparison of RedHat vs Debian.  We have a
| number of boxes, some production, which run everything from RedHat
| 6.0 and newer.  I'd like to look at converting to Debian stable but
| need to justify my case before I can even formally suggest it.  I've
| started listing my own reasons and issues but need more.  Any good
| suggestions or comparisions already done?

Debian stable is quite old.  I used to run RH (started with 5.2 but
it didn't like my video card, then used 6.1 and 7.0 with lots of
manual upgrades inbetween).  I don't remember which version of GNOME
they ship with, but potato has only 1.0.55.  There are a lot of other
things that have been updated since the release of stable.  However,
stable is really stable and a good platform.  When the next stable is
released (woody) then you can easily upgrade every package you have
using 'apt-get dist-upgrade'.  If you have a need for newer software
than is in stable, you could run testing.  I don't know if it is
generally recommended for production use, but I use it on my
workstation at home.  It has been really stable for me -- I haven't
had any problems with it.  I much prefer Debian's package management
and development philosophy to RedHat's.  (They also don't use broken
compilers and libc's on supposedly stable releases)  While Debian
stable is rather outdated, the people who want the latest stuff have
it by using sid instead.  For the most part RH doesn't provide new
packages until the next release is labeled "stable".  Debian also
provides security updates to stable (install via 'apt-get') and has
many more packages than RH.  There were some apps that I wanted, but
couldn't get to compile on my RH system.  When I installed potato I
found that they were already included!


Reply to: